MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; miscellaneous claims assessment schedule 2(2); claim for statutory benefits; unidentified alleged at-fault vehicle; claim made on Nominal Defendant; whether "due inquiry and search" established under section 2.30; impact of delay in undertaking due inquiry and search; Held - due inquiry and search established by the claimant; identity of vehicle alleged to be at fault unable to be established.

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

1. For the purposes of s 2.30(2), due inquiry and search has been made to establish the identity of the motor vehicle concerned.
2. For the purposes of s 2.30(1), the identity of the vehicle cannot be established.

1. On 6 February 2023, Rami Raad (the claimant) was attending work related training at Licence 4 Work in Bankstown. During the lunch break he was crossing Canterbury Road, Bankstown with other trainees.
2. A blue sedan, either Ford or Holden, exited a driveway, struck the claimant, and stopped briefly. The at-fault driver asked the claimant if he was alright but left the scene without exchanging details of his identity and insurance. The claimant states he was in shock and pain after the accident; other trainees assisted him to return to the classroom before seeking medical attention at Liverpool Hospital later that day.
3. Among other injuries the claimant was diagnosed with a right lower limb fracture and other musculoskeletal injuries. There is no dispute that the claimant was injured in the incident.
4. The claimant applied for personal injury benefits on 15 March 2023.
5. Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (insurer), acting as Nominal Defendant rejected the claim on the basis that due inquiry and search has not been satisfied.
6. The claimant submits that, having regard to the circumstances of the accident and the steps that he has taken, he has discharged his obligations under s 2.30(2) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (the MAI Act).
7. The claimant initially instructed one law firm to pursue this and subsequently instructed Premier Compensation Lawyers.
8. There is no dispute that the claimant took the following steps to identify the at-fault motor vehicle and driver:

(a) On 7 February 2023, the claimant reported the accident to Bankstown Police. The police conducted inquiries and canvassed for CCTV footage, but no registration details were obtained.

(b) On 17 February 2023, the claimant sent emails to multiple local businesses, Totally Work Wear, Total Tools, Ozzy Homes, Licence 4 Work, requesting CCTV footage and any information about the at-fault motor vehicle. Responses were received indicating no relevant footage was available.

(c) Through his previous legal representatives, the claimant repeatedly requested Licences 4 Work to provide relevant incident reports, witness details, and CCTV footage. These efforts are documented in correspondence dated July 2024.

(d) The claimant attempted to obtain the other trainees' details who had witnessed the accident, but the Licence 4 Work declined to provide these due to privacy reasons. The claimant's previous legal representatives also sought this information.

(e) On 25 September 2024, the claimant advertised in the Sydney Morning Hearld seeking information from the public about the accident.

(f) In September 2024, flyers were posted around the accident site seeking information about the at-fault driver.

(g) Since the claimant commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) he has obtained a direction for production directed to Licences4Work to obtain that relevant information.

1. The relevant workers compensation insurer instructed Huxley Hill Group to investigate and report on the circumstances.
2. The Nominal Defendant also obtained a brief report dated 23 January 2024.
3. The claimant and his previous legal representatives kept the insurer informed of all steps taken and provided supporting documentation. The claimant has sought reviews of the insurer's original decision.
4. On 19 May 2023, 31 October 2024, 1 September 2025 and 8 October 2025, the insurer issued notices confirming that it does not accept the claim as the claimant has not made adequate attempts to establish the identity of the vehicle at fault.
5. The insurer's Certificate of Determination dated 11 November 2025 affirms that it rejects the claim, citing a lack of promptness in respect of placing advertisements and asserting that a reasonable person would have obtained details at the scene.

1. Division 2.4 of the MAI Act deals with claims involving uninsured or unidentified motor vehicles. Section 2.30 addresses claims against the Nominal Defendant where the at-fault vehicle cannot be identified and provides:

"(1) An action for the recovery of damages in respect of the death of or injury to a person caused by the fault of the owner or driver of a motor vehicle in the use or operation of the vehicle on a road in New South Wales may, if the identity of the vehicle cannot be established, be brought against the Nominal Defendant.

(2) A claim cannot be made against the Nominal Defendant under this section unless due inquiry and search has been made to establish the identity of the motor vehicle concerned...

(4) The inquiry or search may be proved orally or by affidavit of the person who made the inquiry or search.

(5) In respect of any such action, the Nominal Defendant is liable as if it were the owner or driver of the motor vehicle."

1. Section 2.30 applies to a claim for statutory benefits by virtue of the operation of ss 1.4 (definition of "claim") and 1.10A (liability of Nominal Defendant) of the Act. Relevantly, s 1.4 defines "claim" to mean "a claim for statutory benefits or a claim for damages." Section 1.10A provides:

"1.10A The provisions of this Act relating to the liability of the Nominal Defendant in connection with a motor accident apply to a claim for statutory benefits in the same way as they apply to a claim for damages, subject to -

(a) necessary modifications, and

(b) modifications prescribed by the regulations."

1. Pursuant to s 2.36 of the MAI Act, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited is managing this claim for the Nominal Defendant.
2. The claimant did not assert that the Nominal Defendant had lost its right to reject the claim for failure to make due inquiry and search under s 2.31 of the MAI Act or that it had failed in its obligations under clause 4.136 of the Motor Accident Guidelines[1] (Guidelines) to inform the claimant about his obligations to make due inquiry and search to ascertain the identity of the vehicle alleged to have been at fault in the accident.
3. Further, the insurer did not raise any issues about the claimant's credit in his representations of what had occurred during and since the subject accident.

1. The parties attended a preliminary conference on 13 February 2026 to decided how the matter should proceed.
2. The parties agreed to the dispute being determined on the basis of the documents before me without holding a formal hearing.

1. Section 52(3) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act) provides:

"(3) If the Commission is satisfied that sufficient information has been supplied to it in connection with proceedings, the Commission may exercise functions under this Act and enabling legislation without holding any conference or formal hearing."

1. Having considered both s 52 of the PIC Act and Procedural Direction PIC2, and the documents before me, I am satisfied that I have sufficient information available to me to allow me to determine the issues in dispute 'on the papers' and without holding a formal hearing, and that this is the appropriate course in the circumstances.

1. The claimant has provided details of his search above. The initial steps were timely and he cooperated with the police investigation. The training organisation where he was attending would not cooperate in providing witness details for privacy reasons.
2. The compulsory third party (CTP) insurer was informed about the circumstances soon after the accident and the claimant continued to provide information as it became available.
3. The claimant states he was injured, in shock, and did not have the presence of mind to obtain details at the scene. This was a relevant factor recognised in Nominal Defendant v Meakes (2012) NSWCA 66 (Meakes).
4. In Meakes the Court stated that "... due inquiry and search means such inquiry and search as is reasonable in the circumstances. To be reasonable it must be as prompt and thorough as the circumstances will permit."
5. Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd (2005) NSWCA 346 held that the standard for due inquiry and search is not one of perfection, but of reasonableness in the circumstances. The inquiry must be as thorough as is reasonable but need not be exhaustive.
6. Nominal Defendant v Lane (2007) NSWCA 113 confirmed that assessing reasonableness for due inquiry and search takes the claimant's circumstances into account, including their physical and mental state post-accident.
7. The advertisement and flyers were additional steps taken to exhaust all reasonable avenues, not the only steps.
8. The later steps were supplementary and do not negate the reasonableness of the initial actions. The insurer's reliance on the timing of the advertisement and flyers is misplaced.
9. The insurers' investigations via Quantumcorp and Huxley Hill Group, could not obtain further information, confirming the claimant's practical difficulties.

1. In Meakes, the plaintiff was not so injured that he could not write down the relevant information given he had the tools to do that. This was the case in the claimant's circumstances.
2. Sackville AJA held in Meakes that when assessing "due inquiry and search" the respondent should be taken as a reasonably informed member of the community.
3. Kirby P stated in Oztan v NSW Ministerial Corporation [1995] MVR 259, that "due inquiry and search means such inquiry and search as is reasonable in the circumstances. To be reasonable it must be prompt and thorough as the circumstances will permit."
4. For due inquiry and search to be considered "reasonable," it must be undertaken promptly. That is, due inquiry and search should be done, immediately and without delay.
5. The insurer relies on the following in relation to the claimant's inaction and delays:

(a) The police report confirms the claimant had the opportunity to take note of the blue sedan's registration number at the scene of the accident when the driver stopped and exited his vehicle to ask the claimant if he was okay.

(b) The claimant was surrounded by witnesses to the accident and was with them after the accident, however he did not ask for their details.

(c) The claimant waited 11 days to send emails to various businesses in the area surrounding the accident scene.

(d) The claimant waited about 17 months (until July 2024) to contact Licence 4 Work seeking the names and contact details of the witnesses.

(e) The claimant waited about 19 months (until September 2024) before the claimant advertised in the newspaper and posted flies in the location.

1. In addition, it is noted that the claimant was completing a traffic control course on the day of the accident and that he has worked in the security industry in various roles, including management, since at least 2014. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the claimant, where he is trained in responding to incidents/accidents and where he was undergoing training specifically in traffic control, it was reasonable for him to have ascertained the identity of the vehicle that collided with him by taking the necessary steps for due search and enquiry promptly.

Has the claimant established due inquiry and search?

1. Section 2.30 of the MAI Act requires there to have been due inquiry and search in respect of the identity of the vehicle said to be at-fault, and that the identity of the vehicle was not able to be established.[2]
2. Section 2.30 requires the claimant to show that due inquiry and search has been performed but the identity of the vehicle could not be established, or that searches and inquiries would not have established the identity of the vehicle, such that no inquiry or search was "due" in the circumstances.[3]
3. To be reasonable, a search must be as prompt and thorough as the circumstances permit and the inquiries must be set on foot before the scent is cold.[4] However, the claimant is not required to take steps which are likely to prove futile or purely ritualistic and unlikely to be productive.[5] Further, the due inquiry and search can be done on behalf of the claimant or in the interest of that person.[6]
4. As Barwick CJ explained in Harrison v Nominal Defendant (1975) 7 ALR 680 (Harrison) at [682]:

"It is not whether some search and inquiry has been made. The presence of the word 'due' in the subsection emphasizes that the question is whether the identity of the vehicle cannot be established though such search and inquiry as might appropriately be made in the circumstances of the case had taken place. ... It is a mistake, in my opinion, to divorce the words 'after due inquiry and search' from the total expression of the condition on which the action against the Nominal Defendant may be brought. Whether or not the tribunal of fact is satisfied that the identity of the vehicle cannot be established after such search and inquiry of which the circumstances admit will depend on all the circumstances of the case."

1. Dixon CJ opined in Cavanagh v Nominal Defendant [1958] HCA 57; (1958) 100 CLR 375 (Cavanagh) at [380]:

"...the word 'due' brings with it the circumstances of the case as the test of what inquiry and search will suffice. And it is the circumstances of the case of the person suffering bodily injury or, where death has been caused, of the claimant that must be considered. It is the word 'due' which connects the inquiry and search with the person injured where, as here, the claim is for bodily injury. You must look at the circumstances in which he or she was placed and, bearing in mind that the question is one affecting that person's rights, say whether in those circumstances enough was done by or on behalf of or in the interest of that person to warrant the description 'due' inquiry and search."[7]

1. In addition to considering the circumstances of the injured person, the Courts have recognised that it is appropriate to treat the claimant as a "reasonably informed member of the community", being a person "expected to know that a victim injured in a motor accident where another person is at fault may be able to claim compensation from that person".[8] "When considering the knowledge of a 'reasonably informed member of the community', one has to look at the particular circumstances of the proposed plaintiff and assess his or her actions prospectively, not in hindsight. To do otherwise would not be to give proper effect to the word 'due,' as explained in Cavanagh, Harrison and Oztan."[9]
2. The section also requires that the identity of the vehicle causing the injury cannot, after due inquiry and search, be established.[10] That is:

"...the claimant is not able to provide any adequate information as to the identity of the vehicle notwithstanding that the claimant and those acting for the claimant with his or her authority have taken such measures to ascertain it as were reasonable in the circumstances of the case having regard to the situation of the claimant."[11]

Did the claimant undertake due inquiry and search on the day of the accident?

1. The parties agree that the police report correctly described the claimant and driver at fault briefly exchanging inquiries about the claimant's state after the impact. This was an opportunity to exchange details and photograph the car's registration. It may be the case that one of the other people present photographed the vehicle at fault. This was not explored on the day.
2. The insurer says because of his work experience the claimant should have known he had to take immediate action and he was in a position to do so. The behaviour the insurer prescribes is the archetypal conduct that would have precluded this dispute.
3. However, the claimant submits his reasons for not taking those steps immediately is that he was in shock and pain after the accident. This was supported by his evidence that other trainees had to assist him to return to the classroom before he sought medical attention at Liverpool Hospital later that day. That carries weight in respect of the circumstances of the accident.
4. Bystanders who had been training with the claimant and saw the accident helped him back to the training venue. The claimant says he remained in shock and pain.
5. Later that day he went to Liverpool Hospital Emergency Department. The hospital diagnosed frank injuries to his knee and bruising. He had to see his general practitioner (GP) later that same day due to unceasing pain. There is no disagreement relevant to this application regarding his injuries.
6. The email dated 17 February 2023 addressed to Licenses 4 work explained the circumstances of the accident and his awareness of his obligations. It also states almost contemporaneously why he did not obtain the details immediately. That email indicates that the claimant had felt he was in danger because he could have been "killed."
7. The claimant says he was in shock and pain, which was his main concern. This situation persevered that day until he was able to get medical treatment. It is a matter of general knowledge that weight bearing bone fractures are painful and that a person in shock can be overborne mentally and physically.
8. I find that a reasonable person in the claimant's circumstances could have been overwhelmed by the pain he says he was experiencing so he would not have the presence of mind to record any other details of the unidentified vehicle or otherwise undertake search or inquiry on the day of the accident.
9. Based on the evidence before me, I find that in the circumstances on the day the claimant was disabled due to his accident caused injuries, which influenced why he did not obtain the driver's details at the scene of the accident. The claimant's circumstances were such that he did not fall back on his training and experience. That extends to the rest of that day.

Did the claimant undertake due inquiry and search after the accident?

1. The claimant applied for personal injury benefits on 15 March 2023. The claimant had already reported the accident to NSW Police and canvassed local businesses via emails to obtain CCTV footage that could identify the driver at fault.
2. The claimant's report to the police the day after the accident, he was conscious of his obligation to attempt to identify the driver and car at fault. Reporting an accident to police is one type of inquiry which can be made by a claimant.
3. I am satisfied that speaking with police was an appropriate inquiry by the claimant and constitutes inquiry and search. This inquiry alone would not be sufficient to satisfy the claimant's obligations under s 2.30 of the MAI Act.
4. The police report noted after a canvas of the area there was no surrounding CCTV that may have captured the incident. The police investigation did not include obtaining potential witness details from the training organisation.
5. The insurer is critical of the 11 days delay in sending canvassing emails to local businesses, but the email annexed to the claimant's submissions indicates he was acting on his training and experience, plus advice from his employer and its workers compensation insurer that he must take steps to identify the driver at fault.
6. I find that the claimant's inquiries to the police and the contact with the businesses close to the accident site seeking CCTV footage were appropriate and sufficiently prompt.
7. Once the claimant had claimed personal injury benefits under the MAI Act, he provided details of his search so that the insurer was aware of the steps he carried out. The claimant's legal representatives continued to provide up-to-date information about the search.
8. In July 2024, the claimant's then lawyers asked the training organisation he attended on the day of the accident for potential witnesses' contact details. That request was declined on the basis that it would breach privacy laws.
9. Subsequently, in other Commission proceedings a direction for production has been served to obtain those details. However, I have not been appraised of the outcome of that enquiry.
10. The claimant was otherwise reliant on his legal representatives to undertake further inquiries including posting an advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 September 2024.
11. During September 2024, the claimant also posted flyers on poles near the accident site asking for witnesses to come forward.
12. The searches undertaken by the claimant's legal representatives via newspaper advertisements or posting in the area were not attended to in a timely fashion. The placing of the notices was done at a time when it could be said that the trail had "gone cold."
13. The direction for production may yield relevant information that may lead to identification of the relevant vehicle though. The direction for production was only possible by commencing proceedings in the Commission. I am satisfied that no further search or inquiry of the accident area was due.

Can the identity of the unidentified vehicle be established?

1. On the current evidence before me, I am satisfied that, despite the due inquiry and search undertaken by the claimant, the vehicle cannot be identified.
2. The direction for production is the only additional search or inquiry that could have reasonably been undertaken in the circumstances that may establish the vehicle's identity.

1. I am satisfied that there has been due inquiry and search by the claimant, but that the identity of the unidentified vehicle has not been established. I find that the claimant has complied with his obligations under s 2.30 of the MAI Act.

[2] Nominal Defendant v Ayache (2014) 67 MVR 473; [2014] NSWCA 253 at [36].

[3] Ross at [3], referring to Nominal Defendant v Meakes [2012] NSWCA 66 (Meakes) at [54]-[55].

[4] Meakes at [31], referring to Blanford v Fox [1944] NSWStRp 62; (1944) 45 SR (NSW) 241 at [245] per Jordan CJ (Blanford).

[5] Harrison v Nominal Defendant (1975) 7 ALR 680 at [681] per Barwick CJ (Harrison).

[10] Harrison at [681] per Barwick CJ.

[11] Cavanagh at [381] per Dixon CJ.